| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Stephanie Thompkins | Analyst |
| Ms. Margaret K. Patterson | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Christopher J. Prosser | Member | |
| Mr. Harry B. Oberg | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was a good soldier and it was his personal life that got him discharged.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army as a private, pay grade E-1, on 22 February 1980.
He completed his basic and advance training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B20, Infantryman.
He was advanced to sergeant, pay grade E-5, effective 1 April 1984 with a date of rank of 3 March 1984.
On 10 July 1984, he was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for being absent from his unit from 2 July to 3 July 1984. His punishment included reduction to pay grade E-4 (suspended until 10 January 1985), forfeiture of pay for 2 months (suspended until 10 January 1985), restriction for 40 days and extra duty for 30 days.
He was counseled for spouse abuse. His command worked with the applicant and his problem and the applicant was transferred to another unit in an attempt at rehabilitation.
On 24 August 1984, the applicant’s commander initiated action to discharge him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for Misconduct-Spouse Abuse. The commander stated that the specific reason for the discharge was spouse abuse.
On the same date, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed discharge action. Through counsel he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. The applicant also acknowledged the rights available to him, the effect of any action taken by him waiving his rights and what he may expect as the result of issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions.
On 12 September 1984, the appropriate authority approved his discharge, changed his separation to misconduct – pattern of misconduct and waived a rehabilitative transfer.
He was separated on 25 September 1984 in pay grade E-5 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 for misconduct – pattern of misconduct. He was issued a General Discharge Certificate. He was credited with 4 years, 7 months and 3 days total active service.
On 4 January 1988, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge.
He enlisted in the Ohio Army National Guard (OH ARNG) on 10 July 1987 with a waiver, for 6 years, in pay grade E-5. He enlisted for the Student Loan Repayment program.
On 7-8 October, 4-5 November, and 2-3 December 1989, he had unexcused absences. He was notified but did not respond.
On 10 May 1988, action was initiated to deny the applicant’s security clearance. It was disclosed that the applicant has been charged by the military police for drunk driving, being involved in a traffic accident and fleeing the scene. For this offense, he was fined one-week pay and his driver’s license was revoked for 1 year. It was also disclosed that the records of the Harker Heights Police Department indicated that the applicant was arrested on 1 July 1984 for simple assault after hitting his spouse on the face and hand. On 13 August 1984, he was again arrested for assault with bodily harm injury. The applicant struck his wife repeatedly in the face, bruising her eyes and scraping her forehead and chin. The applicant did not acknowledge receipt of this action.
He was discharged on 1 April 1990 from the OH ARNG for unsatisfactory participation, with a general, under honorable conditions character of service. He was transferred to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) for completion of his service obligation.
He was honorably discharged from the Reserve effective 13 July 1993.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.
Paragraph 3-7 of this regulation provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. In view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to an upgrade of his general discharge to honorable. He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests.
2. The Board’s notes the applicant’s contentions that his personal life got him discharged. The Board agrees. His misconduct of spousal abuse is a serious offense in the military environment and cannot be tolerated. He was properly recommended for discharge for this misconduct, and properly discharged from the Regular Army and the OH ARNG.
3. The Board also notes that the applicant’s command attempted to assist the applicant extensively and his own misconduct was the reason for his discharge. He appeared to have been unconcerned about his future in the service. The approving authority granted the applicant leniency upon his discharge from the Regular Army when his reason for separation was changed from misconduct-spouse abuse to misconduct-pattern of misconduct.
4. While the Board is empathetic, the applicant's pleadings are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.
5. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
6. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
DETERMINATION: The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
_HBO____ _MKP___ _CJP___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002073313 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020829 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | A70 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9207280
The applicant’s commander submitted a recommendation for the applicant’s separation under chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200. The applicant’s commander testified that an Army Regulation 15-6 was done because of rumors of the applicant’s involvement with another woman, but there was no proof of misconduct; that the applicant was command directed to “D&A (drug and alcohol)” on 29 May 1987; that the applicant told him on 8 May 1987 that he had already been scheduled for an appointment; that...
NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00318
The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his disobedience of the orders and directives which regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, and falls short of that require for an honorable characterization of service. The Applicant may, however, petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014755
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge and that the date of birth (DOB) on his DD Form 214 be corrected. Accordingly, he was discharged with a general, under honorable conditions discharge on 21 March 1991, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 for misconduct commission of a serious offense.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110018136
On 3 February 1984, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, for misconduct pattern of misconduct. There is no record the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) seeking a discharge upgrade during that board's 15-year statute of limitations. Although the facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicants discharge are not on file, his DD Form 214 indicates that he was discharged on 3...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060009385
The applicant's military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army, in pay grade E-1, on 13 November 1979, for 3 years. On 18 June 1985, the applicants commander recommended the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12d. The applicant was separated on 17 July 1985, in pay grade E-4, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12d, Misconduct Drug Abuse.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110000928
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of the records of her deceased former spouse, a former service member (FSM), to show he timely changed his Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP) coverage from "spouse" to "former spouse" coverage at the time of their divorce and payment of the SBP annuity based on his death. The evidence of record shows that the FSM executed a DD Form 1883 on 19 August 1979, electing "spouse and children" RCSBP coverage under option C, immediate...
NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00976
ND03-00976 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030514. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Letter from Applicant’s Mother (2 pages) Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052274C070420
On 28 October 1985, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct. The applicant's GD issued on 18 November 1985, for misconduct, was administratively correct and in conformance with the applicable regulations then in effect. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by issuing to the individual concerned a DD Form 215 showing in Item 18 that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608189C070209
On 8 November 1991, the applicants commander advised the applicant that he was initiating action to separate him for his patterns of misconduct under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, and of his rights. On 17 January 1992, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-2, under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b (misconduct-pattern of misconduct), with a general discharge under honorable conditions. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110011302
After his discharge from active duty, [the FSM] joined the Ohio Army National Guard, [from] which he was honorably discharged [in] July 2001 and the U.S. Army Reserve, [from] which he was honorably discharged [in] December 2006. The applicant provides an Honorable Discharge Certificate showing the FSM was discharged from the ARNG on 26 July 2001. On or about 24 January 2002, the FSM again submitted a DD Form 293 to the ADRB requesting upgrade of his discharge from the RA to honorable.